John Kerry faces skeptical House on Iran sanctions

Secretary of State John Kerry managed to convince the Senate. But he didn’t have much success in pressing the case against new Iran sanctions in the House, where Republicans and Democrats alike made clear how deep the resistance to the Iran deal runs in Congress.

The Senate Banking Committee will hold off on new sanctions, Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said Tuesday afternoon, citing the “the strong case for a pause in congressional action” made to him by Kerry and President Barack Obama.

Text Size

-

+

reset

But in the larger forum of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry had more trouble. Back in front of House lawmakers after his appearances in September that failed to sell Congress on authorizing military action in Syria, the secretary of state had two missions: persuade House members to accept the current vagueness on Iranian enrichment capability and not to add new sanctions on Iran.

Kerry faced heavy skepticism in a hearing that occasionally turned sarcastic and brusque, tangling with committee members about whether he or they were being naive and failing to see the full depth of the situation.

Kerry began by warning repeatedly that a rush to new sanctions now is unnecessary and “gratuitous.” Existing sanctions, he said, have created and will continue to create enough pressure — the relief coming to Tehran from the interim agreement by his calculations will be limited at $7 billion, not $40 billion, as some have said. And if a deal isn’t struck, he repeated, there will be an opportunity to pass more.

“I’m not saying never,” Kerry said. “If this doesn’t work, we’re coming back and asking you for more. I’m just saying not right now.”

In a rare display of House unity, all the members of the committee who questioned Kerry essentially told him no, in a bipartisan tag team that raised doubts to the secretary about many aspects of the agreement.

At the end of the three-hour hearing, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and ranking member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) stood together in front of the cameras to say Kerry had done nothing to dissuade them from their interest in working out an arrangement with the Senate to pass a bill that would create new sanctions with a delay that would immediately be triggered if a six-month deadline passes without a satisfactory final agreement.

Asked whether Kerry is wrong to say this could endanger all the negotiations, they cited past examples of Congress pushing for sanctions over previous administrations’ objections. Royce said that despite Kerry’s warnings, their six-month delayed sanctions are “a pretty responsible way to make certain that the Iranians do indeed negotiate in good faith.”

Along the way, members invoked Nelson Mandela, whose freedom and the end of apartheid Royce said came as a result of strong sanctions; North Korea, which they called an example of insufficiently tough international negotiations failing to stop a rogue regime from going nuclear; and Adolf Hitler, the stock example of the dangers of appeasement.

“This is a bipartisan concern. There are excellent questions on both sides,” said the usually partisan Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), specifically praising Engel and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) for their efforts.

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), meanwhile, started his question by saying that one of the greatest political disappointments of his life was Kerry’s failure to win the presidency, so “I’m not a so-called friend, I’m a believer. However, when it comes to this deal, I’m against it.”

Kerry said the Iranians and the rest of the negotiators concerned with American seriousness would see, and that moving to pass new sanctions now would signal that Washington isn’t committed to the negotiations.

“Our partners don’t expect us to pass new sanctions while we’re negotiating, and our partners will get squirrely about sanctions. They’ll figure we’re doing our own thing and we’re not part of the team,” Kerry said.

Kerry said the administration believes that the security of Israel and the region would be strengthened by the current approach to Iran and shot back at the idea that he and Obama are stumbling into an idealized fantasy based on trust.

“I think it is anything but naïve. Anything but,” Kerry said. “There is nothing naive about what we’re doing. It is calculated. … We understand the dangers, we understand the risks.”

Kerry was in Jerusalem last week to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is headed back there later this week, but House members took the chance anyway Tuesday to repeatedly remind the secretary of state what Netanyahu’s said about the deal — including Sunday, when the Israeli leader warned the Saban Forum, “I think we’ve learned from history that regimes with unlimited appetites act out their fantasies and their mad ideologies when they think they have weapons of mass death or at least incalculable power.”

Kerry said he believes Netanyahu understands the American approach, and he pleaded with members of Congress to do the same and believe that the administration has no interest in acting on blind faith.

“Has Iran changed its nuclear calculus? I honestly don’t think we can say for sure yet,” Kerry said. “Believe me, this is not about trust.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the status of Senate Banking Committee action on potential sanctions.